[Rushtalk] Happy Death-by-Government Day!

Paf Dvorak notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info
Mon Jun 10 02:00:54 MDT 2013

At 08:33 PM 6/9/2013 -0700, Tom Matiska wrote:
>When you say "War of Northern Aggression" I hear 
>a toilet flush. Don't say something that stupid 
>if you want to be taken seriously.


<http://www.lewrockwell.com/>Home | 
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/>Blog | 
<http://www.lewrockwell.com/sub.html>Subscribe | 
| <https://www.lewrockwell.com/donate/>Donate

Thomas DiLorenzo: More on the Myth of Lincoln, Secession and the 'Civil War'

by Anthony Wile
<http://www.thedailybell.com>The Daily Bell

Recently by Anthony Wile: 
Celente on the New Renaissance and Big Non-State Trends Changing the World


Introduction: Thomas DiLorenzo is an American 
economics professor at Loyola University 
Maryland. He is also a senior faculty member of 
the Ludwig von Mises Institute and an affiliated 
scholar of the League of the South Institute, the 
research arm of the League of the South, and the 
Abbeville Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in 
Economics from Virginia Tech. DiLorenzo has 
authored at least ten books, including 
Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His 
Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (2003), 
Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the 
American Revolution and What It Means for 
Americans Today (2009), 
Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of 
Our Country, From the Pilgrims to the Present 
Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed To Know about 
Dishonest Abe (2007) and most recently, 
Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government 
(2012). Thomas DiLorenzo is a frequent columnist 
for LewRockwell.com, lectures widely and is a 
frequent speaker at Mises Institute events.

Daily Bell: Remind our readers about one of your 
central intellectual passions, which is 
confronting academic "Lincoln revisionism." Who 
was Lincoln really and why have you spent so much 
of your career trying to return Lincoln's academic profile to reality?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln mythology is the 
ideological cornerstone of American statism. He 
was in reality the most hated of all American 
presidents during his lifetime according to an 
excellent book by historian Larry Tagg entitled 
Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: America's Most Reviled 
President. He was so hated in the North that the 
New York Times editorialized a wish that he would 
be assassinated. This is perfectly 
understandable: He illegally suspended Habeas 
Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of 
Northern political critics without due process; 
shut down over 300 opposition newspapers; 
committed treason by invading the Southern states 
(Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution defines 
treason as "only levying war upon the states" or 
"giving aid and comfort to their enemies," which 
of course is exactly what Lincoln did). He 
enforced military conscription with the murder of 
hundreds of New York City draft protesters in 
1863 and with the mass execution of deserters 
from his army. He deported a congressional critic 
(Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham of 
Ohio); confiscated firearms; and issued an arrest 
warrant for the Chief Justice when the jurist 
issued an opinion that only Congress could 
legally suspend Habeas Corpus. He waged an 
unnecessary war (all other countries ended 
slavery peacefully in that century) that resulted 
in the death of as many as 850,000 Americans 
according to new research published in the last 
two years. Standardizing for today's population, 
that would be similar to 8.5 million American deaths in a four-year war.

Lincoln was deified by the Republican Party, 
which monopolized the government for half a 
century after the war. The Pulitzer prize-winning 
novelist Robert Penn Warren wrote in his book, 
The Legacy of the Civil War, that all of this 
mythology created an ideology of "false virtue" 
that was (and is) interpreted by the American 
state to "justify" anything it ever did, no 
matter how heinous and imperialistic. The truth 
about Lincoln and his war "must be forgotten," 
said Warren, if one is to believe in this "false 
virtue," which also goes by the slogan of "American exceptionalism."

Lincoln was a nationalist and an imperialist. He 
was the political son of Alexander Hamilton who, 
as such, advocated a government that would serve 
the moneyed elite at the expense of the masses. 
Hence his lifelong advocacy of protectionist 
tariffs, corporate welfare, and a central bank to 
fund it all. This was called "mercantilism" in 
the previous centuries, and was the very system 
the American colonists fought a revolution over.

Daily Bell: What did you think of the recent 
Steven Spielberg movie about Lincoln? Are 
defenders of Lincoln getting increasingly desperate?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes, the Lincoln cult is 
getting desperate. Spielberg hired Doris 
Kearns-Goodwin, a confessed plagiarist, as his 
advisor on the movie (See my LewRockwell.com 
article entitled 
Plagiarist's Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry"). 
The main theme of the movie is exactly the 
opposite of historical truth. The main theme is 
that Lincoln used his legendary political skills 
to help get the Thirteenth Amendment that ended 
slavery through the Congress. But if one reads 
the most authoritative biography of Lincoln, by 
Harvard's David Donald, one learns that not only 
did Lincoln not lift a finger to help the genuine 
abolitionists; he literally refused to help them 
when they went up to him and asked him for his 
help. Lincoln did use his political skills to get 
an earlier, proposed Thirteenth Amendment through 
the House and Senate. It was called the Corwin 
Amendment, and would have prohibited the federal 
government from ever interfering with Southern 
slavery. Even Doris Kearns-Goodwin writes about 
it in her book, Team of Rivals, discussing how 
the amendment, named after an Ohio congressman, 
was in reality the work of Abraham Lincoln.

Daily Bell: Why should that be so? Is the myth of 
Lincoln a central one to the larger and continued 
myth of modern US exceptionalism? Who propagates these myths and who benefits?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes, the Lincoln myth is the 
ideological cornerstone of "American 
exceptionalism" and has long been invoked by both 
major political parties to "justify" anything and 
everything. President Obama quoted and 
paraphrased Lincoln in a speech before the United 
Nations last September, and in his second 
inaugural address, to support his agenda of 
waging more aggressive wars in Syria, Iran, and 
elsewhere. Specifically, he repeated the "All Men 
are Created Equal" line from the Gettysburg 
Address to make the case that it is somehow the 
duty of Americans to force "freedom" on all men 
and women everywhere, all around the globe, at 
gunpoint if need be. This is the murderous, 
bankrupting, imperialistic game that Lincoln mythology is used to "justify."

Daily Bell: Put Lincoln in context. Why is 
continued mythology so important to the current 
power structure of the Anglosphere?

Thomas DiLorenzo: The state cannot tell the 
people that it is bankrupting them and sending 
their sons and daughters to die by the thousands 
in aggressive and unconstitutional wars so that 
crony capitalism can be imposed at gunpoint in 
foreign countries, and so that the 
military-industrial complex can continue to rake 
in billions. That might risk a revolution. So 
instead, they have to use the happy talk of 
American virtue and American exceptionalism, the 
"god" of democracy," etc. And the average 
American, whom the great H.L. Mencken referred to 
as part of the "booboisie," believes it.

Daily Bell: Let's try to clear up a few more 
myths. Did Lincoln issue greenbacks in defiance 
of British "money power"? In other words, was his 
war waged as an act of rebellion against European 
colonialism? From our point of view, Lincoln was 
likely in thrall to the New York banking establishment. How do you see it?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Lincoln spent his entire life 
in politics, from 1832 until his dying day, as a 
lobbyist for the American banking industry and 
the Northern manufacturing corporations that 
wanted cheaper credit funded by a government-run 
bank. He spent decades making speeches on behalf 
of resurrecting the corrupt and destabilizing 
Bank of the United States, founded originally by 
his political ancestor, Hamilton. No member of 
the Whig Party was more in bed with the American 
banking establishment than Lincoln was, according 
to University of Virginia historian Michael Holt 
in his book on the history of the American Whig 
party. The Whig agenda, which was always 
Lincoln's agenda, was described brilliantly by 
Edgar Lee Masters (Clarence Darrow's law partner) 
in his book, Lincoln the Man. The agenda was to 
champion "that political system which doles 
favors to the strong in order to win and keep 
their adherence to the government." It advocated 
"a people taxed to make profits for enterprises 
that cannot stand alone." The Whig Party "had no 
platform to announce," Masters wrote, "because 
its principles were plunder and nothing else." 
Lincoln himself once said that he got ALL of his 
political ideas from Henry Clay, the icon and 
longtime leader of the Whig Party.

Daily Bell: Let's ask you some tough questions 
that will be of interest to our readers and our 
critics alike. Charges have been leveled from 
some (disreputable) quarters that you are somehow 
conspiring historically with a Jesuit faction to 
promote historical inaccuracies regarding Lincoln 
since you are a professor at Loyola. Could you 
please explain these charges more comprehensively 
and then use this form to rebut them?

Thomas DiLorenzo: I don't usually answer "when 
did you stop beating your wife"-type questions 
since they always come from people with I.Q.s in 
the single digits. These are people who do not 
have the mental capacity to learn real economics, 
so they blabber on about crazy conspiracy 
theories. The Jesuits at Loyola actually hate me 
with a passion since they are, with one or two 
exceptions, Marxist ideologues and I am a 
libertarian, i.e., the devil. Read my 
LewRockwell.com article entitled 
from an Academic Looney Bin" if you want to learn 
of my contempt for the Jesuits who run Loyola University Maryland.

Daily Bell: Thanks for the insights. Now, on to 
another more serious matter, which has to do with 
the role of Jefferson Davis as President of the 
Southern Secession. Let's preface this by 
proposing it has been proposed that both the 
Russian Revolution and Germany's rise to power 
were apparently funded at least in part by Wall 
Street and British "City" money – especially via 
Swiss banks. Can you comment on this perspective 
as it may well have a bearing on Civil War 
funding? Is it true, for instance, that many wars 
including the Civil War are not exactly what they 
seem and that what we call Money Power benefits 
by backing both sides and profiting from the conflict itself?

Thomas DiLorenzo: War is always destructive to a 
nation's economy regardless of whether it wins or 
loses the war. War is the opposite of capitalism. 
Capitalism is a system of peaceful, 
mutually-advantageous exchanges at market prices 
based on the international division of labor. War 
destroys the international division of labor and 
diverts resources from peaceful, capitalistic 
exchange to death and destruction. However, there 
are always war profiteers – the people who profit 
from selling and financing the military. One 
doesn't need to invent a conspiracy theory about 
this: War profiteering is war profiteering and 
has always existed as an essential feature of all wars.

Daily Bell: There are even questions raised about 
Napoleon Bonaparte and whether Money Power 
utilized the French general's bellicosity for 
their own purposes. Can you comment? Is it 
possible the US Civil War was also arranged and 
funded by those in Europe that had an agenda to 
diminish the United States's exceptionalism and vitiate its republicanism?

Thomas DiLorenzo: I prefer not to answer 
anonymous questions like this. Who says this, and 
what is his or her credibility? Any credentials? 
Have they written anything I can read to judge 
their thinking ability? Any crank can say any 
crazy thing and suggest any weird conspiracy 
theory on the Internet. Besides, "American 
exceptionalism" did not become a tool of American 
imperialism until AFTER the Civil War.

Daily Bell: Money Power is a banking phenomenon 
and much of the banking power was located in 
Britain during Lincoln's time, as today. New York 
banks had extensive relationships with British 
banking power. And from what we can tell, Lincoln 
derived an extensive funding and power base from 
these same banks. So here is another question 
that goes to the heart of this funding issue: Why 
did Britain supposedly back the South? Is it 
possible that this is a historical ruse? Was the 
British banking establishment pro-North even 
though the aristocracy was pro-South? Did it suit 
British banking interests to perpetuate this confusion?

Thomas DiLorenzo: There is no such thing as 
"Britain" that backed or did not back the South. 
There were prominent British individuals like 
Charles Dickens who sided with the South in their 
writings, but there were also those with similar 
stature who backed the North. I recommend the 
book by Charles Adams entitled 
Secession, and Civil War: Views from the United 
Kingdom and Europe, 1856-1865. Since the South 
continued to trade with England during the war, 
there were British banks that financed a lot of 
this trade and would therefore have supported the 
South for that reason. At the end of the war the 
British government was scared to death that 
Sherman would take his army across the Atlantic 
as an act of revenge for this collaboration.

Daily Bell: Is it possible that the British 
banking establishment didn't care which side won 
the war, as the US would be irreparably weakened 
no matter who triumphed? Were British bankers 
expecting this weakening would encompass a loss 
of freedom and a rise of governmental 
authoritarianism? It certainly did, didn't it?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Since bankers are bankers and 
not journalists and writers, there is no way of 
knowing their views on this question without a 
written record. Anyone who claims to know this 
without any such record is simply blowing smoke 
and wasting your time. British intellectuals like 
Lord Acton understood and wrote about how the 
result of the war would be a US government that 
would become more tyrannical and imperialistic. 
To the extent that some British bankers read such 
literature and tended to agree with Lord Acton, 
then that would have been their opinion. 
Nineteenth-century British bankers were not 
omniscient, Wizard-of-Oz orchestrators of world 
events any more than you and I are.

Daily Bell: Here is an even tougher question to 
answer and a thoroughly speculative one. Is it 
possible that Jefferson Davis also had a 
relationship to British Money Power? One salient 
fact stands out: Davis served as President 
Franklin Pierce's war secretary and while Pierce 
was an ardent states' rights advocate, it was 
also widely reported that he had relations with a 
powerful US secret society – the Knights of the 
Golden Circle. Can you comment on the Knights of 
the Golden Circle and what their agenda might 
have been? We've written about this issue here: 
James DiLorenzo on Abraham Lincoln, U.S. 
Authoritarianism and Manipulated History."

Here's a brief description from a book on the 
Knights entitled, 
Mysterious and Secret Order of the Knights of the 
... "Few people know of the Knights of the Golden 
Circle and even fewer know about the purpose for 
which it existed. It is probably the greatest 
untold story today in the history of the United 
States. ... It has been said of them that they 
were one of the deadliest, wealthiest, most 
secretive and subversive spy and underground 
organizations in the history of the world ... The 
group was heavy on ritual, most of which was 
borrowed from the Masonic Lodge and later from 
the Knights of Pythias. Some were also members of 
the Rosicrucians." To what end was Jefferson 
Davis involved with the Knights? Was he in a 
sense set up to fail? Did he willingly participate? Was he a patsy?

Thomas DiLorenzo: I have no idea. How would 
anyone know anything about this if it was a 
"secret" society, as you say? Jefferson Davis was 
a brilliant and highly educated man who spent a 
long career in national politics and wrote a 
great book, 
Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. It 
is unimaginable that any American politician 
since could have performed such an amazingly 
insightful piece of genuine scholarship. This is 
not the type of man who would have been easily 
duped by the local Masonic Lodge.

Daily Bell: Are these fair questions? Jefferson 
was President of the Southern Secession but he 
proved an ineffective leader and his policies in 
many ways sabotaged the South and its quest to 
secede. Was his incompetence entirely genuine, in your view?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Davis was not a dictator. He 
had a lot of help losing the war, especially from 
his generals who insisted on the Napoleonic 
battlefield tactics they were taught at West 
Point and which had become defunct because of the 
advent of more deadly military technology by the 
middle of the nineteenth century. One of his 
biggest failures was waiting until the last year 
of the war to finally do what General Robert E. 
Lee had been arguing from the beginning – 
offering the slaves freedom in return for 
fighting with the Confederate Army in defense of their country.

Daily Bell: A final question. It was Davis who 
set the war in motion, inexplicably, by declaring 
formal hostilities, so why didn't he and his 
generals fight a guerrilla war that they would 
have been almost certain to win? General Lee 
insisted on formal engagements with the North but 
had neither the resources nor the men to win a 
war of attrition of this sort. Why didn't he 
pursue well-known guerilla tactics that would 
have produced a victory or at least a stalemate?

Thomas DiLorenzo: No, it was Lincoln who launched 
an invasion of the Southern states. Davis's 
declarations were just words. Giving guerilla 
fighters like John Singleton Mosby and Nathan 
Bedford Forrest more resources may well have won 
the war for the South, but Mosby was kicked out 
of VMI and Forrest was almost totally uneducated 
formally. The Confederate military establishment 
was controlled by West Point graduates who knew 
little or nothing about guerilla warfare. When 
asked after the war who his most effective 
subordinate was, Lee said it was a man named Forrest.

Daily Bell: Certainly the arc of Davis's career 
after the war does little to contradict the 
hypothesis that there was more to Davis's role 
than history records. He never served a long jail 
sentence, visited England later in life and was 
supported by a wealthy widow, Sarah Anne Ellis 
Dorsey, who was a primary member and literary 
representative of Southern aristocracy with its 
many European connections. This would also seem 
to show that Davis had deep connections to the 
British power structure. Is all this merely frivolous supposition?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes.

Daily Bell: Okay, let's turn to your recent book, 
False Virtue: The Myths that Transformed America 
 From A Republic to an Empire. Can you explain 
what this is about to our readers and why you wrote it?

Thomas DiLorenzo: That's something that I'm still 
working on. I plan on putting into book form the 
story of how the Lincoln myth has been used for 
the past 150 years or so to prop up American foreign policy imperialism.

Daily Bell: What are you working on now, if anything?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Besides this, I'm working on a 
book on the politics and economics of war.

Daily Bell: Do you still believe that secession 
is in the offing for several or more of "these 
united States"? Will it come without bloodshed?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Thank God for the former serfs 
of the Soviet empire that they only had a 
totalitarian communist like Gorbachev to deal 
with and not a Lincoln. Peaceful secession is the 
only way out of the new slavery for the average 
American, and it will only happen if we have a 
president who is more like Gorbachev than 
Lincoln. That is one more reason why the Lincoln myth needs to be destroyed.

Daily Bell: Are hostilities deepening between Fedgov and US states?

Thomas DiLorenzo: The booboisie in America for 
the time being seems happy to endure whatever 
additional enslavements the federal government 
proposes for them. That may change, however, when 
there is hyperinflation and their healthcare 
system is destroyed by Obama's socialized 
medicine, or if one of the tiny and relatively 
defenseless countries that the US government is 
perpetually picking on figures out a way to 
retaliate in a big way. That just might cause the 
booboisie to finally ask such questions as: "Do 
my children really have to be sacrificed and sent 
to their deaths so that people in Syria can be 
ruled by a different dictator chosen by the CIA?"

Daily Bell: Isn't secession a lawful, constitutional right?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Article 7 of the Constitution 
explains that the document was to be ratified by 
the "free and independent states," as they are 
called in the Declaration of Independence. The 
union of the founders was voluntary, and several 
states reserved the right to withdraw from the 
union in the future if it became destructive of 
their rights. Since each state has equal rights 
in the union, this became true for all states. 
That is why, at the outset of the Civil War, the 
overwhelming majority of Northern newspapers 
editorialized in favor of peaceful secession. 
Most of them quoted Jefferson from the 
Declaration saying that governments derive their 
just powers from the consent of the governed, and 
when that consent is withdrawn it is the peoples' 
duty to abolish that government and form a new one.

Lincoln thus destroyed the voluntary union of the 
founding fathers and replaced it with a 
Soviet-style coerced union held together with the 
threat of total war waged on the civilian 
population of any state in the future that 
attempted to make Jefferson's argument and act on 
it. It is telling that on the eve of the Civil 
War several federal laws were proposed to outlaw 
secession. This occurred because everyone at the 
time understood that secession was perfectly legal and constitutional.

Might does NOT make right, so yes, secession is a 
right that the people of any free society should have.

Daily Bell: Is the Internet helping to create an 
upsurge of freedom-consciousness among the US electorate?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes, without a doubt. That's 
why some of the most obnoxious and tyrannical of 
our politicians, like Obama, Lieberman, McCain 
and Schumer, seem to be constantly conniving to 
somehow censor or shut down the internet "for national security reasons."

Daily Bell: How many real "nations" does the US encompass?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Time will tell. Jefferson 
believed there were at least seven or eight 
regions that could be created as independent 
American nations during his time, and he wrote 
that he would wish them all well as they would 
all be, as Americans, "our children."

Daily Bell: What about Europe? Will it also see a 
fracturing of the euro and perhaps of the EU itself?

Thomas DiLorenzo: I think we are seeing the 
collapse of the EU and the Euro along with the 
European welfare state. We should all pray that 
it happens a thousand times faster.

Daily Bell: How about China?

Thomas DiLorenzo: China is now more capitalist 
than the US and its government is less tyrannical 
than the government in Washington, DC.

Daily Bell: Is the Internet helping to cause these "devolutions"?

Thomas DiLorenzo: When the AFL-CIO conspired with 
the Catholic Church in Poland to subvert 
communism they smuggled fax machines into the 
country so that the anti-communists could plot 
and communicate. The internet makes all of this 
infinitely easier to accomplish.

Daily Bell: Is the 21st century more hopeful than 
the 20th and 19th when it comes to large-scale 
wars and manipulation of various electorates in the West and elsewhere?

Thomas DiLorenzo: One virtue of the 19th century 
was that the public school brainwashing 
bureaucracy was not yet very well developed. It 
certainly is today, which is why America has 
become such a nation of statist sheep.

Daily Bell: Is the current system of Fiat Money 
Power on the way out? If so, what will take its place?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Yes. That's what all the 
economic turmoil in Europe is about. I'd like to 
see a return to a gold standard. This will have 
to happen if we are to avoid worldwide economic 
collapse similar to the Great Depression.

Daily Bell: How does the Lincoln mythology play 
out today in light of all these circumstances?

Thomas DiLorenzo: It is still the ideological 
cornerstone of American statism, but we are making progress.

Daily Bell: Will the US revert to a freer, more self-sufficient model?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Only if peaceful secession is allowed to occur.

Daily Bell: Is the pre-Civil War US model a 
template for a more viable society in the future?

Thomas DiLorenzo: Minus slavery, of course. The 
Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union 
were far superior to the Constitution that 
replaced them (and which omitted the world "perpetual").

Daily Bell: Can we ever go back? Is history linear or cyclical?

Thomas DiLorenzo: I don't believe in such 
determinism. We can correct mistakes. We DID 
deregulate oil and transportation in the 1980s; 
socialism DID collapse worldwide in the late 
'80s/early '90s and was replaced by more market-oriented regimes.

Daily Bell: Any other comments or predictions?

Thomas DiLorenzo: The Republican Party will 
continue to become more and more irrelevant and 
powerless; the Democratic Party establishment 
will finally strip off their masks and reveal 
themselves as the totalitarian socialists that 
they have always been; and the political future 
will belong to the young Ron Paulians.

Daily Bell: Thanks for your time once again.

Daily Bell After Thoughts

Thomas DiLorenzo got a little irritated with us 
because we harped on the Jesuit issue (see 
interview). But we did so because a malicious 
minority of what we can only call Neo-Nazi 
"social" and "mutual creditors" have attacked him 
for being influenced by the Jesuit educational 
establishment for which he works.

Money is power and those who challenge the status 
quo are dangerous to the internationalist 
impulse. Thus, globalists claim DiLorenzo has 
attacked Lincoln because he wanted to undermine 
Lincoln's use of government Greenbacks as effective money.

Money is a complex system. It is not 
mathematically reducible. Only the free-market 
itself, the Invisible Hand, can organize money 
within the context of the complex relationships 
that exist in a modern society (though admittedly 
such relationships could and should be simplified).

But according to some, only the state, properly 
guided by responsible politicians, can provide 
the money society needs. DiLorenzo has also been 
attacked by this socialist faction because he 
named Lincoln for what he was: the father of US Empire.

Before Lincoln, it was common belief that any 
state could secede from the Union. After Lincoln, 
it was clear no state could secede without facing 
military action. That situation continues today.

DiLorenzo is a consequential writer. He has 
advanced our understanding of who Lincoln really 
was and where American exceptionalism took a 
wrong turn. The attacks of his critics 
notwithstanding, he is an original and courageous 
historian, and we look forward to reading more of his work.

Reprinted with permission from 
<http://www.thedailybell.com>The Daily Bell<http://www.howtovanish.com>.

June 3, 2013

Anthony Wile is an author, columnist, media 
commentator and entrepreneur focused on 
developing projects that promote the general 
advancement of free-market thinking concepts. He 
is the chief editor of the popular free-market 
oriented news site, 
<http://TheDailyBell.com>TheDailyBell.com. Mr. 
Wile is the Executive Director of The Foundation 
for the Advancement of Free-Market Thinking – a 
non-profit Liechtenstein-based foundation. His 
most popular book, 
Alert, is now in its third edition and available 
in several languages. Other notable books written 
by Mr. Wile include The Liberation of Flockhead 
(2002) and The Value of Gold (2002).

Copyright © 2013 <http://www.thedailybell.com>The Daily Bell

<http://www.lewrockwell.com/wile/wile-archive.html>The Best of Anthony Wile

<http://www.lewrockwell.com>Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

Paf Dvorak

<http://thatswaytoomuch.info/>notmyname at thatswaytoomuch.info  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20130610/a5eaa140/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list